What's the difference between Michigan and other elite programs
Putting aside the smart assed answers of just "Dave Brandon or Hoke", Why does it seem Michigan falls flat on its face in doing a coaching search and change while other schools simply transition and move on. Look at USC and OSU as examples. Elite programs paying top dollar for their coach and went through a rapid unexpected change. OSU flounders 1 season under an assistant after Tressel gets the boot/quits, then instantly goes on a 24 game tear. USC get Kniffen (who doesn't cut it), cuts him, then goes on an impressive tear and is very much a relevant team right now.
It's not like when Lloyd left it was horribly unexpected or sudden. Rich Rod comes in and turns the program into a 3 win team. Granted he was starting to make some traction when he was ran out, but it still wasn't an OSU or USC turn around. We've fallen to further irrelevance since. Hoke shows up and does an amazing job in 2011. Instantly we start losing games. It's the opposite of the OSU experiment.
So here's the question. What is the difference between UM and these other programs that we can't seem to get things turned around? Maybe it does lay 100% on Brandon and Hoke, but maybe it's not. Just wanted to start a discussion on why those programs are still successful and we're floundering.
Second question: How it is that we've been a young team ever year? Seems like every year we hear how we have issues because of young talent. How does this happen? I don't hear excuses being given for MSU, OSU, FSU, Bama etc... that they have a young team, and even when they have a higher number of younger players, you still don't see a dramatic downturn in performance. I guess I'm just sick of that excuse and can't understand why we seem to live in perpetuity with young players.
September 7th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^
don't forget fewer losses.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^
Wins, yes.
But there is much more to it. Most programs look to the future when we dwell on the past. It pains me to say since Sparty has been saying this for years.
Legend patches, "This is Michigan", Michigan Men, etc. It's all bullshit.
Hoke is another reason. and that's a good answer. He is spineless. It shows in his coaching, his speeches, and his media responses. We need an asshole coach who isn't afraid to bench a senior or tell things how they are.
Last but not least, lack of Nike. Nike.
September 7th, 2014 at 10:33 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 3:18 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 3:18 PM ^
Those other programs are willing to do "more".
September 7th, 2014 at 3:20 PM ^
This stupid "michigan man" ideal. I don't care if the next coach is from a forest village in Uganda as long as he can get his kids to tackle, block and catch.
John Beliein was the nomadiest of nomads, having spent time everywhere except Mexico coaching college teams, and once Michigan threw their resources behind him, the basketball team went from one of the worst in the country to Top 10 in less than a decade.
September 7th, 2014 at 3:20 PM ^
Here's the thing: the "Michigan Man" meme seems to be brought up about hundred times by people who think it's a problem for every one person who actually thinks it's a real thing. It's become a straw man, as far as I'm concerned.
September 7th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^
Why else would a career .500 coach been selected as the right hire for this school?
September 7th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^
Agree the next coach (if the worst happens) had better not be a Michigan Man unless his last name is Harbaugh or Miles and thats it.
September 7th, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^
We're limited to a small pool by the cultural ideals that we hold as Michigan, which is a good thing in the grand scheme of things, but harmful when trying to find a coach who can win like we want to win. From that small pool last time, we tried and failed to hire a home run coach and we had to settle for this, a good man but not a good coach. It hurts because we've been bad so long and we want Hoke to succeed so badly, not only because we want to win, but because we want to see good people do well.
What's next? Who knows. Probably mediocrity for the next couple of years. Maybe Harbaugh's wife agrees to come to Michigan this time and Jerry Jones doesn't throw a pile of money at him. Then we could have a chance at being decent soon. Otherwise, we'll fall into the same trap we did last time, try to buy some gold, have someone else get that gold instead, continue searching for gold in a pile of shit (seriously, who's out there right now that we can go after this season?), fail to find gold, and then buy some gold spraypaint, hiring someone else who shouldn't be at this level.
September 7th, 2014 at 3:35 PM ^
We ran out of options? I assure you, if Dave brandon actually hired a search firm instead of merely scribbing three people to give customary interviews to in his iphone (hoke, miles, harbaugh), we would've come across someone that actually earned the job based on merit, instead of prior relationships with the AD.
There's plenty of coaching talent out there, and Michigan was/ is a top 10 job.
September 7th, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^
No coach in their right mind was coming to Michigan after the way he was run out of town.
It doesn't make me happy to say it, but the national "outsider" perception of Michigan is shaped by things like App State, Oregon, Florida over OSU, 3-8, the Alabama drubbing, and getting shut-out last night. The perception isn't going to die out with a Rose Bowl win either. The casual fan and unaffiliated coach sees Michigan as a sinking ship, obsolete technology, united only in looking to the past.
"But we used to be good" just isn't a very good selling point for an elite coaching candidate. And a lot of programs can now boast of 90K+ stadiums.
Hoke got the job because he was willing to play along with the delusion Michigan can just go back to 2000 if it applies itself a little harder. Now we're flipping schemes on both sides of the ball, so the transition goes on. People want to go through this crap again? How about we get a little consistency and get this program pointed in the right direction first?
For all the criticism that Amaker took, he fixed a lot of bad things in the basketball program and stabilized the program culutre. It really set up Beilein for his success. Michigan needs to let Hoke get the football program stabilized. Some 8 and 9 win seasons are OK, for now. Michigan needs to reestablish a positive identity.
There are quick fixes available -- but they are rare and hard to find. You risk killing this program as an elite thing for good. Michigan's status as elite is on the ropes as it is. Another transition and you're in knock-down mode probably.
Texas. Charlie Strong was an elite candiate and they just got beat worse than Hoke did. Year 1 vs Year 3, I know, but there's no guarantee that the prettiest guy on paper will produce.
September 7th, 2014 at 4:37 PM ^
Plenty of coaches in their right minds would come to Michigan. The perception of Michigan may be down but on the whole Michigan has more resources to offer a coach than 90% of other programs. M may be piss poor now but they make tons of money and have committed that money in recent years to building amazing facilities and support for the team and staff. Fans and media may think Michigan is a laughing stock but an ambitious coach could be set up for great success here. A shitty decade of football is not closing the doors that were previously open to anyone wearing the block M. Make no mistake Michigan is an elite institution with elite talent but decidedly without an elite team. Finding the best coach possible no matter where he may come from can change things in a heartbeat. The administration needs to make a concerted effort to support him no matter what.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:05 PM ^
People keep throwing this out there and it doesn't have any meaning to me. You mean paying assistants lots of money? OK, but how far does that get you if they don't produce? Recruiting budget? It may not be elite, but Michigan's problem has never been talent (even with Rodriguez). Still superior to Wisconsin, MSU, etc, for now.
What 'resources' are you getting that say, Clemson or Cal or Arizona can't offer you? What player cares about how much a locker room costs? And do those things matter enough to offset the national perceptions, entitled fanbase, and geographic disadvantage?
The kind of coaches you're talking about have to be up-and-comers. Sometimes those guys work - usually the don't. It's a risk. At least with Hoke we know he is buying in to the Michigan ideal and selling it well to recruits and alumni.
Yes, someone CAN be setup for success at Michigan. But they can also be set up to fail, as Rodriguez was.
Hoke is the guy we got. We need to be patient because you saw where impatience has gotten us so far.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^
Seriously WTF are you talkng about? Top coaches do care about elite schools being able to recruit easily. Thats the reason Saban left MSU, he couldn't compete at recruiting with UM, OSU, and ND. Recruits do care about how much a locker room costs, Coaches care how much $ they make. RR did not recruit well, everyone knew that. Thats one of the main reasons coaches were turning us down. The average recruit is going to pich UM over Clemson, Cal, and Arizona. If you can't see how big of a resource that is then you should just shut up, because you are being fucking rediculous.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^
The guy you're responding to makes horrible arguments full of holes.
September 7th, 2014 at 6:22 PM ^
Recruiting just goes back to talent, which, again Michigan has had and continues to have.
Rodriguez did recruit well. It was bad, FOR MICHIGAN, but it was still top 25 caliber talent, better than most other programs. Talent wasn't the problem, it was what he did with it. Sound familiar?
I'm not saying those other schools will recruit better, I'm saying the difference in recruiting (and locker rooms) aren't enough to entice an elite coach to Michigan with all the other stuff around the program. Rodriguez came because of resources...and got booted out of town. I'm pretty sure people noticed that.
Here is a resource that Cal has that Michigan does not - an appreciative fanbase with reasonable expectations and a conference that is gaining in strength, prestige, population. Not to mention a natural recruiting ground it can easily exploit with a few good seasons.
September 7th, 2014 at 7:18 PM ^
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/07/foote-says-michigan-needs-to-rec…
I just came across this article. Im not sure if I agree with Foote's comments or not, but maybe Michigan does need to recruit some kids than dont have "plan B's." Im not saying the kids on the team now arent tough, but we all see what is out there. I feel like some of the guys just dont have that killer instinct.
September 8th, 2014 at 7:56 AM ^
Rodriguez came because of resources...and got booted out of town. I'm pretty sure people noticed that.While, I am the first to point out that the treatment Rich Rodriguez received in Ann Arbor was shameful, to suggest that any candidate for the head coaching position of the Michigan football program doesn't know the score with regards to expectations for performance on the field and off is ridiculous.
Here is a resource that Cal has that Michigan does not - an appreciative fanbase with reasonable expectations and a conference that is gaining in strength, prestige, population.You're comparing Cal to Michigan? Cal hasn't been to the Rose Bowl since Eisenhower was president. In 50 years, they've won exactly two shared conference championships. The expectations at Cal aren't remotely the same as those at Michigan. I really don't know where you're going with this.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:34 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
That's exactly what I'm saying. There is no good reason for a top 10 coach to come here unless he has ties to the program. The level of difficulty is too high and the difference in pay too small. Les Miles would be a fool to come to Michigan, for example.
List through the top 10 coaches and think through if they are coming to Michigan - they are not.
Sure, if you pay them $10M a year, yes, but there is zero evidence Michigan is willing to do that.
You wrote "full access" and again I ask -- to what? From the national perspective, the program is crumbling. Ohio State and Penn State have significant advantages and can sell tradition too, MSU and Wisconsin are in a stronger position at this point because they've established their identities. So, you're talking about maybe the 5th best program in a weak conference that is in decline. Tradition and Prestige have value...but so do patience and appreciation and proven coaching success.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^
Michigan can throw as much money as they want at a head coach and assistants. They just don't. Speaking to facilities, those are also top notch. Every program is in an arms race to build bigger and better facilities and Michigan just updated theirs. The school also happens to boast the largest stadium capacity in America. Those are selling points that not every program has. Plenty of players fall in love with facilities. Oregon has built a program completely on the ability to throw boatloads of money toward newer, better facilities, and constant flow of new nike swag.
Offsetting national perception is something that a coach is not going to care about. If Michigan pays a good coach enough money as they could to bring him here there is already enough talent on the roster to be good now with minimal growing pains, it can be done.
Mitigating an entitled fanbase is also not an issue. Michigan is not any more entitled than a USC, OSU, Texas, Oklahoma, FSU or basically any SEC school. We just haven't been winning enough recently to support that entitlement. Dealing with fan expectations at any of those destinations is inherently something a coach has to deal with and those schools don't seem to have problems finding candidates.
Dealing with geographic disadvantage is already not a problem. There is plenty of high school talent in the midwest that Michigan can pluck and supplementing some of that with national recruits has never been a problem for Michigan. This roster is loaded already. They just don't play like it.
I don't necessarily think you have to go to the MAC or look for some plucky up-and-comer. There are very good coaches in the power 5 conferences or NFL ranks that would probably jump at the chance to coach at a school like Michigan and resurrect a once proud program. Penn State amid sanctions and scandals found O'Brien in the pros and just grabbed Franklin from the SEC. It can be done, but the search needs to extend beyond simply "how is this guy associated with Michigan."
You seem to be content to give Hoke time and that's fine. I don't think he's the guy. Luckily neither of our opinions carry actual weight toward what happens. I don't envy the choices that the AD is going to have to make regarding this matter that's for sure.
September 7th, 2014 at 6:36 PM ^
is something they don't use?
Is that how far we've fallen? The argument for us is we'll outspend everyone else (even though there's no proof we actually are willing to?)
September 7th, 2014 at 7:23 PM ^
You asked for some of the resources that Michigan has and I gave them to you.
I didn't say we had to outspend everyone. You've listed reasons you think that Michigan is at a disadvantage. Opening the coffers and making the job monetarily attractive is one way to counteract that. We aren't talking about a Saban level contract here. Michigan makes money hand over fist. There's no reason they shouldn't be willing to pay a staff what they are worth and what it takes to get them here. If that means paying a little more for a known commodity then so be it.
Can you honestly tell me a guy like Art Briles, for example, who has had success in a power conference at a traditional non-power wouldn't entertain the idea of Michigan if given the chance and if the offer was attractive enough? There are guys that are great coaches at schools that are not in the upper-echelon of traditional powers that would happily listen if Michigan called. Someone above me mentioned top 10 coaches. Well, top 10 coaches are usually guys that were already good coaches and finally got paired with a great university/program. We've already got the latter, all we need is the former.
September 7th, 2014 at 8:05 PM ^
It's not all I got but I covered the rest in other comments.
Bottomline is that the talent advantage, while extant, is there relative to the region, not on the national level. You're going to have to come with something more if your goal is to compete with Oregon, Alabama, USC, and FSU. On top of that you have a lot of hurdles (institutional and fan support, for example) that don't exist elsewhere.
The other stuff just doesn't overcome it anymore. 110K is great, but who cares if you can get 95K somewhere else without the headache. Duke has great academics too, so do Stanford, USC, etc. The prestige/$ help draw recruits because their parents matter, but who cares if you have LA, CA, TX, FL in your backyard.
Yes, we can pay shitons of money to draw someone like Briles...maybe. Put money aside is he better off in a wide open Big 12 (with Texas down) and unlimited recruiting at his frontstep AND being that programs version of Bo Schembechler. Why come to Michigan to play at an inferior conference, work your ass off to sell the program, run it clean, and deal with pissed off fans who would complain because his gimmicky O isn't old-timey enough. Why deal with ZERO job security? The presumed payoff of going from top 15 to top 5 is a high risk venture.
Money doesn't magically fix things. It doesn't fix things for the Yankees and they're not dealing with all the NCAA things that level the playing field.
Could Michigan talk someone like Briles into it? probably. But Baylor's going to have cash too and I suspect he can make out just as well in the end. I imagine he thinks to himself -- that's a whole lot of headache, why would I leave here?
Belloti/Kelly didn't need to be paired with USC or UCLA to be great. Harbaugh didn't need to be setup at Texas. Jimmy Johnson didn't need to be at Alabama. Boise State has more success now than Michigan. The power and the prestige moves around. This next wave of recruits weren't even born in 1997...and coaches know that.
My point here is that we need to stop feeling entitled because the program has tradition and money. It's an advantage, not a right. 3-8 happened, and it can easily happen again.
The program has been torn down, and now it put up a facade while it tries to rebuild the foundation. Other programs are building more impressive structures around them, faster. The killer corner location isn't looking so killer these days. It's raining in our neighborhood and it's unclear if the masons and structural engineers we hired know what the hell they are doing.
September 7th, 2014 at 8:08 PM ^
people said Harbaugh and Miles would come last time. they did not because they had better options.
September 7th, 2014 at 8:38 PM ^
It sounds like you think that a coaching change is not worth it because of what could go wrong or because we may not easily find a guy that fits. I simply see it as a coaching change would be worth it because of what has already gone wrong. Yeah Briles may not come here. Hell, Miles and Harbaugh already didn't come here as you already pointed out. Hoke is here now, but the evidence suggests he's not the guy. You seem willing to give him time and that's fine. If he's retained I'd love to be pleasantly surprised if he does turns it around. You'll have to excuse me for not thinking he can do that though.
Completely off topic, what is your avatar?
September 7th, 2014 at 4:56 PM ^
...ND is a better analog. They struggled for nearly a decade under Weis and Willingham, suffered many on and off field embarrassements, and have similar academic standards and regional disadvantages as we do. The difference I guess is the tolerance of the ND fan base, who seem better able to to accept a 9-4 season without mistaking it for the end of the program.
September 7th, 2014 at 7:04 PM ^
If the argument is that no outsider was going to want the job because of how the last outsider was treated, then the "Michigan Man" concept certainly exists.
I also disagree that a string of 8 or 9 win seasons is the prescription for anything or will do anything to get us "off the ropes" as an elite program. A couple 10/11 win seasons is what's necessary.
We're not going to suddenly become Minnesota no matter who the next coach is. Fearing a bad transition is no reason to maintain mediocrity.
September 7th, 2014 at 10:55 PM ^
I agree with just about everything you said except that Tommy Amaker set up Belein for success. That's horseshit. Belein would have succeeded regardless and he had to put up with impatience early on, too, including Jay Bilas backing up his Duke buddy after Belein's first year.
Here is my take on the reason Michigan isn't elite as a program:
In football, as in war, the rule is adapt or die. Michigan hired a coach who was into the cutting edge of football strategy. a) They didn't throw all of their resources behind him to begin with like they did for Coach B, b) the very administration that was supposed to back him up undermined him multiple times, c) the media ran a hit piece on the coach and the university only backed this coach in a half assed way while trying to distance themselves from said coach and d) many who run the athletic department as well as many fans are stuck in a land of nostalgia where you can win football playing like cavemen.
Not surprisingly, this coach was fired which has repurcussions if Michigan ever wants to hire a coach with similar scheme style, and they hired a former position coach from "the glory days" with a mediocre head coaching record but with the "Michigan Man" nostalgia addict stamp of approval.
So really none of us should be surprised with where we are now. Frankly we should probably be surprised that we went 11-2 in 2011, but that speaks to the character of Rich Rodriguez recruits who could have left but stayed in transition. I don't know where Michigan goes from here. Staying the course would seem to lead to mediocrity in my opinion, but if they want to adapt to modern football, it's going to take a lot of money and a commitment that has been absent for non "Michigan Men" to this point. Unfortunately I don't think our AD can escape 90s style football or terrible marketing strategies long enough to pull this program's head out of its ass.
September 7th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 7th, 2014 at 11:22 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 6:48 PM ^
I'll preface my explanation by saying I think Brandon is, in a lot of ways, bush league -- sky writing, his blog, 'big-boy football" -- I'm shaking my head as I write this.
Still, he explained his reasoning for the hire at the introductory press conference:
1) an AD collegue presented him with data correlating coaching success and local recruiting ties. This may have been the result of poor analysis, but given what was available, Brandon concluded he, in his words, didn't want someone parachuting into the job (much to my dismay; I really wanted Gary Patterson at the time -- good thing I'm no AD).
2) Brady Hoke showed the ability get to unique programs trending in the winning direction (albeit with a near .500 overall record)
3) the michigan football family was as fractruted as as ever it had been in the past 25 years, so much so it was the topic of several leading questions from the media.
4) many people closely associated with the program, from multiple eras, publicly supported the hire
5) regarding the timing of the process, not so much the conclusion, January 1, 2011 started the 4th year of the Rodriguez contract in which the buyout figure was reduced from 3.5 to $2 million.
6) Yes, the Harbaugh situation. It's likely Brandon thought Jim would transition right in from Stanford until he became such a hot prospect that the NFL, the 49ers specifically (a reported important family factor) came calling. This is all, of course, speculation, but the previous points are not.
Your obviously welcome to disagree with Brandon and his priorities, but given the criteria above, the Hoke hire objectively seemed to fit well and would allow the program to succeed -- something that looks very remote now.
This is all to say, given different circumstances (read: replacing Hoke), Brandon could make a great hire. Then again, perhaps not. Like I alluded to early, I don't have much faith, but to characterize the Hoke hire entirely as cronyism is a little unfair.
September 7th, 2014 at 11:19 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
Ran out of options? Don't forget "the process." That cost us big time.
September 7th, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^
I understand your point- I really do... I recall telling fellow UM friends and alums "I'd rather have a proven coach who knows nothing of UM than a guy who loves UM but 'had that one year where he almost won the MAC' coaching".
But - really - who else were our choices? If you're remembering that we had a full array of other proven, elite coaches that would have come to UM with the right amount of bankroll, I suggest that your memory may be experiencing a bit of revisionist history. The only other choice that I recall having a chance with was Miles... and I recall this because I was excited about the possibility, but remember vividly being in the minority because the prevailing sentiment at the time (at least on this mgoblog site) seemed to be, "Well, yeah Miles... but we don't want that guy... he's a potential trainwreck".
Maybe I'm the one with the failing memory, but I followed the whole coaching search thing pretty closely too - and I can't think of one proven commodity that we had a real chance at landing outside of Miles.
If anything, I think I've learned that any coaching change - outside of a proven commodity - is a 50-50 crap shoot. And the number of "proven commodity" coaches is a small, finite group (like - 6 or less). The Buckeyes lucked out because they landed one of that small group. But heck, even Brian Kelly was a crap shoot... and it wasn't that long ago that my fellow ND alums were wondering aloud whether the job was too big for him.
I wished for better, to be sure. But unless we have a proven commodity that we know would come here - any coaching change is just going to be another 50-50 crap shoot.
September 7th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
It's not that michigan HAD to have a "proven" commodity. it's all a shot in the dark at the end of the day. But what my point is, had Brandon actually undergone a proper search, put feelers out at coaching conventions, networked with agents of coaches at other schools, they would have been able to drum up a short list of qualified, relatively encouraging bets.
Instead Brandon kicked his feet on the desk, said "I got this", scheduled a firing of RR post-bowl-game on Google calendar (couldn't fit it in before, had a fancy golf outing and social events to attend), and texted Hoke come to michigan bro
Things have gone poorly as a result.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
when the sure thing is being mediocre for the foreseeable future. Or maybe worse. I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that there's no longer any question about whether this staff sucks so what's the resistance to trying something else that might suck too--but might NOT?
The level of deluision here is amazing. I'm a passionate fan and have followed this team closely over the past 15 years. I've seen NOTHING in the past two years that leaves me to believe that things will get better, and abundant evidence that it won't. It seems like a certain contingent is so scared of change that they're willing to stick with an undeniably bad situation.
September 7th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
Amen to your last sentence. Amen.
We tried an "outsider" (read: good and qualified coach) and it didn't work out due to an incredible string of circumstances that aren't likely to be replicated.
The solution is to try again with another quality option, instead of running back to what's safe and comfortable (coaches loosely associated with Bo's coaching tree).
For some reason people have concluded that since one outside coach failed, they will all fail.
September 7th, 2014 at 11:26 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^
"Proven commodity" so was Bobby Ross. It still didn't work.
I don't have the answers, but I agree we can't be blinded in a coaching search by our own prejudices: whether
That be wanting a 'Michigan man' or wanting someone who runs 'modern' offenses.
September 7th, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^
Can't agree more on the point that the "Michigan Man" nonsense is what got Hoke hired. I remember hearing about Hoke as an option and thinking there is no way. Brandon is just trying to do Hoke a favor and raise his profile for other HC jobs, not for Michigan. I could not believe there was even a debate about Miles vs. Hoke. Miles is 10X the coach that we have now.
This arrogant BS is why they will not hire Miles! He got an interview last time so Brandon could say he talked to him. I don't believe for a second that Brandon ever had any intention of hiring Miles.
September 7th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
Why do you use the avatar of the worst coordinator in college football? I mean I do too, but you can see the difference.
September 7th, 2014 at 6:34 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 7:58 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 8:41 PM ^
September 7th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^